NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VICENTE MOZ

- HENRIQUEZ,

Petitioner,

v. MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General, Respondent. No. 20

- 72147 Agency No. A209

- 225

- 206

MEMORANDUM *

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted October 12, 2021 * *
Before: TALLMAN, RAWLINSON, and BUMATAY , Circuit Judges. Vicente Moz

- Henriquez, a native and citizen of El Salvador, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Imm igration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal , and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”).

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

OCT 19 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 72147

We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, including determinations regarding social distinction. Conde Quevedo v. Barr , 947 F. 3d 1238, 1241

- 42 (9th Cir. 2020). We review de novo the legal question of whether a particular social group is cognizable, except to the extent that deference is owed to the BIA’s interpretation of the governing statutes and regulations. Id. We review d e novo claims of due process violations in immigration proce edings. Simeonov v. Ashcroft , 371 F.3d 532, 535 (9th Cir. 2004). We deny the pet ition for review. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Moz

Henriquez failed to establish his proposed social group is socially distinct. See Conde Quevedo , 947 F.3d at 1243 (substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that petitioner’s proposed social group was not cognizable because of the absence of society

- specific evidence o f social distinction). Thus, the BIA did not err in concluding that Moz

- Henriquez did not establish membership in a cognizable particular social group. See Reyes v. Lynch , 842 F.3d 1125, 1131 (9th Cir. 2016) (in order to demonstrate membership in a parti cular social group, “[t]he applicant must ‘establish that the group is (1) composed of members who share a common immutable characteristic, (2) defined with particularity, and (3) socially distinct within the society in question’” (quoting Matter of M

- E

- V

- G

- , 26 I. & N. Dec. 227, 237 (BIA 2014))). Thus, Moz

- Henriquez’s asylum and withholding of3 20

- 72147

removal claims fail. Substantial evidence supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because
Moz

- Henriquez failed to sho w it is more likely than not that he will be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to El Salvador. See Aden v. Holde r , 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009).
Moz

- Henriquez’s contention that the agency violated his right to a full and fair hearing fails. See Lata v. INS , 204 F.3d 1241, 1246 (9th Cir. 2000) (requiring error to prevail on a due process claim).
Moz

- Henriquez doe s not challenge the agency’s denial of his request to terminate based on Pereira v. Sessions , ––– U.S.

––– , 138 S. Ct. 2105, 201 L.Ed.2d 433 (2018)

. See Lopez

- Vasquez v. Holder , 706 F.3d 1072, 1079

- 1080 (9th Cir. 2013) (issues not specifically raised and argued in a party’s opening brief are waived). The tempora ry sta y of removal remains in place until issuance of the mandate.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.